Volunteer Summary
CONSORT Flow Diagram
Overall status
Characteristic | Overall1 | Control1 | Treatment1 |
|---|---|---|---|
time_point | |||
1st | 120 | 58 | 62 |
2nd | 100 | 53 | 47 |
1n | |||
Demographic information
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1201 | control, N = 581 | treatment, N = 621 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
age | 120 | 38.15 ± 17.06 (18 - 148) | 39.90 ± 19.46 (18 - 148) | 36.51 ± 14.44 (20 - 70) | 0.279 |
gender | 120 | 0.298 | |||
female | 86 (72%) | 39 (67%) | 47 (76%) | ||
male | 34 (28%) | 19 (33%) | 15 (24%) | ||
occupation | 120 | 0.659 | |||
civil | 6 (5.0%) | 2 (3.4%) | 4 (6.5%) | ||
clerk | 23 (19%) | 9 (16%) | 14 (23%) | ||
homemaker | 8 (6.7%) | 3 (5.2%) | 5 (8.1%) | ||
manager | 16 (13%) | 9 (16%) | 7 (11%) | ||
other | 11 (9.2%) | 4 (6.9%) | 7 (11%) | ||
professional | 15 (12%) | 11 (19%) | 4 (6.5%) | ||
retired | 4 (3.3%) | 2 (3.4%) | 2 (3.2%) | ||
service | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
student | 30 (25%) | 15 (26%) | 15 (24%) | ||
unemploy | 2 (1.7%) | 1 (1.7%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
working_status | 120 | 76 (63%) | 37 (64%) | 39 (63%) | 0.919 |
marital | 120 | 0.477 | |||
divorced | 4 (3.3%) | 1 (1.7%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
married | 27 (22%) | 15 (26%) | 12 (19%) | ||
single | 88 (73%) | 41 (71%) | 47 (76%) | ||
widowed | 1 (0.8%) | 1 (1.7%) | 0 (0%) | ||
marital_r | 120 | 0.689 | |||
married | 27 (22%) | 15 (26%) | 12 (19%) | ||
other | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
single | 88 (73%) | 41 (71%) | 47 (76%) | ||
education | 120 | 0.074 | |||
primary | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | 0 (0%) | ||
secondary | 14 (12%) | 3 (5.2%) | 11 (18%) | ||
post-secondary | 20 (17%) | 12 (21%) | 8 (13%) | ||
university | 86 (72%) | 43 (74%) | 43 (69%) | ||
university_edu | 120 | 86 (72%) | 43 (74%) | 43 (69%) | 0.561 |
family_income | 120 | 0.541 | |||
0_10000 | 13 (11%) | 5 (8.6%) | 8 (13%) | ||
10001_20000 | 22 (18%) | 8 (14%) | 14 (23%) | ||
20001_30000 | 23 (19%) | 11 (19%) | 12 (19%) | ||
30001_40000 | 20 (17%) | 10 (17%) | 10 (16%) | ||
40000_above | 42 (35%) | 24 (41%) | 18 (29%) | ||
high_income | 120 | 62 (52%) | 34 (59%) | 28 (45%) | 0.140 |
religion | 120 | 0.649 | |||
buddhism | 5 (4.2%) | 4 (6.9%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
catholic | 5 (4.2%) | 2 (3.4%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
christianity | 47 (39%) | 23 (40%) | 24 (39%) | ||
nil | 61 (51%) | 29 (50%) | 32 (52%) | ||
other | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
taoism | 1 (0.8%) | 0 (0%) | 1 (1.6%) | ||
religion_r | 120 | 0.915 | |||
christianity | 52 (43%) | 25 (43%) | 27 (44%) | ||
nil | 61 (51%) | 29 (50%) | 32 (52%) | ||
other | 7 (5.8%) | 4 (6.9%) | 3 (4.8%) | ||
source | 120 | 0.067 | |||
bokss | 51 (42%) | 20 (34%) | 31 (50%) | ||
17 (14%) | 13 (22%) | 4 (6.5%) | |||
9 (7.5%) | 6 (10%) | 3 (4.8%) | |||
other | 19 (16%) | 9 (16%) | 10 (16%) | ||
refresh | 24 (20%) | 10 (17%) | 14 (23%) | ||
1Mean ± SD (Range); n (%) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test; Pearson's Chi-squared test; Fisher's exact test | |||||
Measurement
Characteristic | N | Overall, N = 1201 | control, N = 581 | treatment, N = 621 | p-value2 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | 120 | 19.20 ± 2.18 (15 - 25) | 19.02 ± 2.03 (15 - 24) | 19.37 ± 2.31 (15 - 25) | 0.377 |
setv | 120 | 11.14 ± 1.64 (7 - 15) | 11.03 ± 1.56 (8 - 15) | 11.24 ± 1.71 (7 - 15) | 0.490 |
maks | 120 | 44.92 ± 3.63 (36 - 57) | 44.67 ± 3.59 (36 - 52) | 45.16 ± 3.68 (38 - 57) | 0.463 |
ibs | 120 | 15.44 ± 2.45 (5 - 20) | 15.41 ± 2.14 (10 - 20) | 15.47 ± 2.72 (5 - 20) | 0.904 |
ers_e | 120 | 12.22 ± 1.46 (8 - 15) | 12.14 ± 1.47 (8 - 15) | 12.29 ± 1.45 (9 - 15) | 0.569 |
ers_r | 120 | 11.11 ± 1.58 (7 - 15) | 11.02 ± 1.57 (7 - 14) | 11.19 ± 1.59 (8 - 15) | 0.543 |
pss_pa | 120 | 44.62 ± 4.47 (30 - 54) | 44.47 ± 4.26 (30 - 54) | 44.76 ± 4.68 (31 - 54) | 0.722 |
pss_ps | 120 | 26.64 ± 8.34 (12 - 56) | 26.67 ± 7.63 (13 - 42) | 26.61 ± 9.02 (12 - 56) | 0.969 |
pss | 120 | 45.02 ± 11.85 (21 - 77) | 45.21 ± 11.26 (22 - 72) | 44.85 ± 12.47 (21 - 77) | 0.872 |
rki_responsible | 120 | 21.01 ± 4.13 (7 - 32) | 20.95 ± 4.11 (13 - 29) | 21.06 ± 4.18 (7 - 32) | 0.878 |
rki_nonlinear | 120 | 13.30 ± 2.75 (6 - 22) | 13.12 ± 2.54 (6 - 20) | 13.47 ± 2.94 (7 - 22) | 0.492 |
rki_peer | 120 | 20.58 ± 2.15 (16 - 25) | 20.47 ± 2.07 (16 - 25) | 20.68 ± 2.23 (16 - 25) | 0.591 |
rki_expect | 120 | 4.75 ± 1.09 (2 - 8) | 4.60 ± 1.11 (2 - 8) | 4.89 ± 1.07 (2 - 7) | 0.157 |
rki | 120 | 59.63 ± 6.10 (44 - 81) | 59.14 ± 5.86 (45 - 76) | 60.10 ± 6.33 (44 - 81) | 0.392 |
raq_possible | 120 | 15.66 ± 1.79 (12 - 20) | 15.74 ± 1.89 (12 - 20) | 15.58 ± 1.71 (12 - 20) | 0.626 |
raq_difficulty | 120 | 12.42 ± 1.39 (9 - 15) | 12.53 ± 1.38 (9 - 15) | 12.31 ± 1.41 (9 - 15) | 0.373 |
raq | 120 | 28.08 ± 2.90 (21 - 35) | 28.28 ± 2.97 (21 - 35) | 27.89 ± 2.85 (21 - 35) | 0.466 |
who | 120 | 14.63 ± 4.46 (3 - 25) | 14.62 ± 4.24 (6 - 25) | 14.65 ± 4.68 (3 - 25) | 0.976 |
phq | 120 | 3.76 ± 3.81 (0 - 18) | 3.66 ± 3.73 (0 - 17) | 3.85 ± 3.91 (0 - 18) | 0.776 |
gad | 120 | 3.23 ± 3.57 (0 - 21) | 3.38 ± 4.11 (0 - 21) | 3.08 ± 3.00 (0 - 12) | 0.649 |
nb_pcs | 120 | 51.64 ± 7.15 (25 - 63) | 51.88 ± 7.17 (25 - 63) | 51.42 ± 7.18 (27 - 62) | 0.729 |
nb_mcs | 120 | 50.24 ± 8.59 (22 - 70) | 50.20 ± 8.89 (22 - 68) | 50.28 ± 8.37 (35 - 70) | 0.960 |
1Mean ± SD (Range) | |||||
2Two Sample t-test | |||||
Data analysis
Table
Group | Characteristic | Beta | SE1 | 95% CI1 | p-value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | (Intercept) | 19.0 | 0.269 | 18.5, 19.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.354 | 0.375 | -0.381, 1.09 | 0.347 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.086 | 0.310 | -0.693, 0.521 | 0.781 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.381 | 0.446 | -0.493, 1.26 | 0.394 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
setv | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.219 | 10.6, 11.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.207 | 0.304 | -0.389, 0.804 | 0.496 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.318 | 0.215 | -0.103, 0.738 | 0.142 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.238 | 0.310 | -0.846, 0.369 | 0.444 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
maks | (Intercept) | 44.7 | 0.487 | 43.7, 45.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.489 | 0.677 | -0.838, 1.82 | 0.471 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.230 | 0.406 | -1.03, 0.566 | 0.572 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.044 | 0.589 | -1.11, 1.20 | 0.940 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
ibs | (Intercept) | 15.4 | 0.302 | 14.8, 16.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.054 | 0.420 | -0.770, 0.877 | 0.898 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.170 | 0.254 | -0.328, 0.669 | 0.505 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.399 | 0.369 | -0.324, 1.12 | 0.282 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.010 | ||||
ers_e | (Intercept) | 12.1 | 0.186 | 11.8, 12.5 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.152 | 0.258 | -0.354, 0.659 | 0.556 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.293 | 0.170 | -0.627, 0.041 | 0.089 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.381 | 0.247 | -0.103, 0.864 | 0.126 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.019 | ||||
ers_r | (Intercept) | 11.0 | 0.195 | 10.6, 11.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.176 | 0.272 | -0.356, 0.709 | 0.517 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.100 | 0.237 | -0.366, 0.565 | 0.676 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.261 | 0.341 | -0.408, 0.930 | 0.446 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.017 | ||||
pss_pa | (Intercept) | 44.5 | 0.580 | 43.3, 45.6 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.293 | 0.807 | -1.29, 1.87 | 0.717 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -1.09 | 0.581 | -2.23, 0.053 | 0.065 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.533 | 0.840 | -1.11, 2.18 | 0.527 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.014 | ||||
pss_ps | (Intercept) | 26.7 | 1.062 | 24.6, 28.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.060 | 1.477 | -2.95, 2.84 | 0.968 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.982 | 0.861 | -0.704, 2.67 | 0.256 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.59 | 1.247 | -4.03, 0.856 | 0.206 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.005 | ||||
pss | (Intercept) | 45.2 | 1.509 | 42.2, 48.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.352 | 2.099 | -4.47, 3.76 | 0.867 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 2.09 | 1.222 | -0.303, 4.49 | 0.090 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -2.07 | 1.771 | -5.54, 1.40 | 0.245 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.008 | ||||
rki_responsible | (Intercept) | 20.9 | 0.546 | 19.9, 22.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.116 | 0.759 | -1.37, 1.60 | 0.879 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.015 | 0.476 | -0.948, 0.917 | 0.975 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.254 | 0.689 | -1.10, 1.60 | 0.713 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.001 | ||||
rki_nonlinear | (Intercept) | 13.1 | 0.382 | 12.4, 13.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.347 | 0.531 | -0.694, 1.39 | 0.514 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.297 | 0.352 | -0.988, 0.393 | 0.400 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.953 | 0.509 | -0.045, 1.95 | 0.064 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.025 | ||||
rki_peer | (Intercept) | 20.5 | 0.287 | 19.9, 21.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.212 | 0.399 | -0.570, 0.994 | 0.596 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.029 | 0.273 | -0.506, 0.565 | 0.914 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -0.091 | 0.395 | -0.866, 0.683 | 0.818 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
rki_expect | (Intercept) | 4.60 | 0.142 | 4.33, 4.88 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.284 | 0.197 | -0.102, 0.670 | 0.151 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.170 | 0.148 | -0.121, 0.461 | 0.254 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.109 | 0.214 | -0.310, 0.529 | 0.610 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.033 | ||||
rki | (Intercept) | 59.1 | 0.823 | 57.5, 60.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.959 | 1.145 | -1.28, 3.20 | 0.404 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.117 | 0.714 | -1.52, 1.28 | 0.871 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 1.25 | 1.033 | -0.778, 3.27 | 0.230 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.018 | ||||
raq_possible | (Intercept) | 15.7 | 0.237 | 15.3, 16.2 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.161 | 0.330 | -0.807, 0.485 | 0.626 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.391 | 0.248 | -0.876, 0.094 | 0.117 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.696 | 0.357 | -0.004, 1.40 | 0.054 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.011 | ||||
raq_difficulty | (Intercept) | 12.5 | 0.179 | 12.2, 12.9 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.228 | 0.249 | -0.716, 0.260 | 0.361 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.120 | 0.169 | -0.451, 0.210 | 0.477 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.214 | 0.244 | -0.263, 0.692 | 0.381 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
raq | (Intercept) | 28.3 | 0.381 | 27.5, 29.0 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.389 | 0.530 | -1.43, 0.650 | 0.464 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.497 | 0.357 | -1.20, 0.202 | 0.167 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.903 | 0.516 | -0.108, 1.91 | 0.083 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.006 | ||||
who | (Intercept) | 14.6 | 0.590 | 13.5, 15.8 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.024 | 0.820 | -1.58, 1.63 | 0.976 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.106 | 0.498 | -1.08, 0.870 | 0.832 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.060 | 0.721 | -1.35, 1.47 | 0.934 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.000 | ||||
phq | (Intercept) | 3.66 | 0.491 | 2.69, 4.62 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.200 | 0.683 | -1.14, 1.54 | 0.770 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.118 | 0.337 | -0.543, 0.778 | 0.728 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.350 | 0.489 | -0.610, 1.31 | 0.477 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.004 | ||||
gad | (Intercept) | 3.38 | 0.457 | 2.48, 4.28 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.299 | 0.636 | -1.54, 0.948 | 0.639 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.032 | 0.362 | -0.741, 0.678 | 0.931 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.430 | 0.525 | -0.599, 1.46 | 0.414 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
nb_pcs | (Intercept) | 51.9 | 0.920 | 50.1, 53.7 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | -0.455 | 1.280 | -2.96, 2.05 | 0.722 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | -0.787 | 0.766 | -2.29, 0.714 | 0.307 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | 0.722 | 1.110 | -1.45, 2.90 | 0.517 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.002 | ||||
nb_mcs | (Intercept) | 50.2 | 1.113 | 48.0, 52.4 | |
group | |||||
control | — | — | — | ||
treatment | 0.080 | 1.548 | -2.95, 3.11 | 0.959 | |
time_point | |||||
1st | — | — | — | ||
2nd | 0.956 | 1.013 | -1.03, 2.94 | 0.348 | |
group * time_point | |||||
treatment * 2nd | -1.52 | 1.466 | -4.39, 1.35 | 0.302 | |
Pseudo R square | 0.003 | ||||
1SE = Standard Error, CI = Confidence Interval | |||||
Text
sets
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict sets with group and time_point (formula: sets ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.39) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 19.02 (95% CI [18.49, 19.55], t(214) = 70.57, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.38, 1.09], t(214) = 0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.53])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.69, 0.52], t(214) = -0.28, p = 0.781; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.25])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.49, 1.26], t(214) = 0.86, p = 0.392; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
setv
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict setv with group and time_point (formula: setv ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.55) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.58e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.03 (95% CI [10.61, 11.46], t(214) = 50.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.80], t(214) = 0.68, p = 0.495; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.32, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.74], t(214) = 1.48, p = 0.139; Std. beta = 0.19, 95% CI [-0.06, 0.44])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.24, 95% CI [-0.85, 0.37], t(214) = -0.77, p = 0.442; Std. beta = -0.14, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.22])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
maks
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict maks with group and time_point (formula: maks ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 5.68e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.67 (95% CI [43.72, 45.63], t(214) = 91.78, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.49, 95% CI [-0.84, 1.82], t(214) = 0.72, p = 0.470; Std. beta = 0.13, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.49])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-1.03, 0.57], t(214) = -0.57, p = 0.571; Std. beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.04, 95% CI [-1.11, 1.20], t(214) = 0.08, p = 0.940; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.30, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ibs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ibs with group and time_point (formula: ibs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.41 (95% CI [14.82, 16.01], t(214) = 51.04, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.77, 0.88], t(214) = 0.13, p = 0.898; Std. beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.38])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.67], t(214) = 0.67, p = 0.503; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.29])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.40, 95% CI [-0.32, 1.12], t(214) = 1.08, p = 0.279; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.14, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_e
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_e with group and time_point (formula: ers_e ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.14 (95% CI [11.77, 12.50], t(214) = 65.35, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.66], t(214) = 0.59, p = 0.555; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.29, 95% CI [-0.63, 0.04], t(214) = -1.72, p = 0.086; Std. beta = -0.21, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.03])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.86], t(214) = 1.54, p = 0.123; Std. beta = 0.27, 95% CI [-0.07, 0.61])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
ers_r
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict ers_r with group and time_point (formula: ers_r ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.31) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 11.02 (95% CI [10.63, 11.40], t(214) = 56.42, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.71], t(214) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.56], t(214) = 0.42, p = 0.675; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.38])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.93], t(214) = 0.76, p = 0.445; Std. beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.62])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_pa
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_pa with group and time_point (formula: pss_pa ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.54) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 44.47 (95% CI [43.33, 45.60], t(214) = 76.70, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.29, 95% CI [-1.29, 1.87], t(214) = 0.36, p = 0.717; Std. beta = 0.07, 95% CI [-0.29, 0.43])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.09, 95% CI [-2.23, 0.05], t(214) = -1.87, p = 0.062; Std. beta = -0.25, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.01])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.53, 95% CI [-1.11, 2.18], t(214) = 0.64, p = 0.525; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss_ps
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss_ps with group and time_point (formula: pss_ps ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.93e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 26.67 (95% CI [24.59, 28.75], t(214) = 25.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.06, 95% CI [-2.95, 2.84], t(214) = -0.04, p = 0.968; Std. beta = -7.37e-03, 95% CI [-0.37, 0.35])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.98, 95% CI [-0.70, 2.67], t(214) = 1.14, p = 0.254; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.33])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.59, 95% CI [-4.03, 0.86], t(214) = -1.27, p = 0.203; Std. beta = -0.20, 95% CI [-0.50, 0.11])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
pss
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict pss with group and time_point (formula: pss ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.70) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 7.55e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 45.21 (95% CI [42.25, 48.16], t(214) = 29.96, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.35, 95% CI [-4.47, 3.76], t(214) = -0.17, p = 0.867; Std. beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.39, 0.33])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 2.09, 95% CI [-0.30, 4.49], t(214) = 1.71, p = 0.087; Std. beta = 0.18, 95% CI [-0.03, 0.39])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -2.07, 95% CI [-5.54, 1.40], t(214) = -1.17, p = 0.242; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.12])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_responsible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_responsible with group and time_point (formula: rki_responsible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.65) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.95 (95% CI [19.88, 22.02], t(214) = 38.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-1.37, 1.60], t(214) = 0.15, p = 0.878; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.39])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.95, 0.92], t(214) = -0.03, p = 0.975; Std. beta = -3.68e-03, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.22])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.25, 95% CI [-1.10, 1.60], t(214) = 0.37, p = 0.713; Std. beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-0.27, 0.39])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_nonlinear
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_nonlinear with group and time_point (formula: rki_nonlinear ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.61) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 13.12 (95% CI [12.37, 13.87], t(214) = 34.37, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.69, 1.39], t(214) = 0.65, p = 0.513; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.48])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-0.99, 0.39], t(214) = -0.84, p = 0.398; Std. beta = -0.10, 95% CI [-0.34, 0.14])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.95, 95% CI [-0.05, 1.95], t(214) = 1.87, p = 0.061; Std. beta = 0.33, 95% CI [-0.02, 0.67])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_peer
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_peer with group and time_point (formula: rki_peer ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.58) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 20.47 (95% CI [19.90, 21.03], t(214) = 71.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.57, 0.99], t(214) = 0.53, p = 0.595; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.46])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.51, 0.57], t(214) = 0.11, p = 0.914; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.23, 0.26])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.87, 0.68], t(214) = -0.23, p = 0.818; Std. beta = -0.04, 95% CI [-0.40, 0.32])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki_expect
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki_expect with group and time_point (formula: rki_expect ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 4.60 (95% CI [4.33, 4.88], t(214) = 32.53, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.28, 95% CI [-0.10, 0.67], t(214) = 1.44, p = 0.150; Std. beta = 0.26, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.62])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.17, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.46], t(214) = 1.15, p = 0.252; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.11, 0.42])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.53], t(214) = 0.51, p = 0.609; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.28, 0.49])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
rki
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict rki with group and time_point (formula: rki ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.66) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.02. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 59.14 (95% CI [57.53, 60.75], t(214) = 71.87, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-1.28, 3.20], t(214) = 0.84, p = 0.402; Std. beta = 0.15, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.51])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-1.52, 1.28], t(214) = -0.16, p = 0.870; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.24, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 1.25, 95% CI [-0.78, 3.27], t(214) = 1.21, p = 0.227; Std. beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.53])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_possible
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_possible with group and time_point (formula: raq_possible ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.50) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 0.01. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 15.74 (95% CI [15.28, 16.21], t(214) = 66.46, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.16, 95% CI [-0.81, 0.49], t(214) = -0.49, p = 0.626; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-0.88, 0.09], t(214) = -1.58, p = 0.114; Std. beta = -0.22, 95% CI [-0.48, 0.05])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.70, 95% CI [-4.44e-03, 1.40], t(214) = 1.95, p = 0.051; Std. beta = 0.38, 95% CI [-2.45e-03, 0.77])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq_difficulty
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq_difficulty with group and time_point (formula: raq_difficulty ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.83e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 12.53 (95% CI [12.18, 12.89], t(214) = 70.01, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.23, 95% CI [-0.72, 0.26], t(214) = -0.92, p = 0.360; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.19])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.12, 95% CI [-0.45, 0.21], t(214) = -0.71, p = 0.476; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.15])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.21, 95% CI [-0.26, 0.69], t(214) = 0.88, p = 0.379; Std. beta = 0.16, 95% CI [-0.19, 0.51])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
raq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict raq with group and time_point (formula: raq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.59) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 6.08e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 28.28 (95% CI [27.53, 29.02], t(214) = 74.25, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.39, 95% CI [-1.43, 0.65], t(214) = -0.73, p = 0.463; Std. beta = -0.13, 95% CI [-0.49, 0.22])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.50, 95% CI [-1.20, 0.20], t(214) = -1.39, p = 0.164; Std. beta = -0.17, 95% CI [-0.41, 0.07])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.90, 95% CI [-0.11, 1.91], t(214) = 1.75, p = 0.080; Std. beta = 0.31, 95% CI [-0.04, 0.66])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
who
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict who with group and time_point (formula: who ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.67) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.21e-04. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 14.62 (95% CI [13.47, 15.78], t(214) = 24.80, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.02, 95% CI [-1.58, 1.63], t(214) = 0.03, p = 0.976; Std. beta = 5.55e-03, 95% CI [-0.36, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-1.08, 0.87], t(214) = -0.21, p = 0.832; Std. beta = -0.02, 95% CI [-0.25, 0.20])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.06, 95% CI [-1.35, 1.47], t(214) = 0.08, p = 0.933; Std. beta = 0.01, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.33])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
phq
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict phq with group and time_point (formula: phq ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.78) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 4.15e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.66 (95% CI [2.69, 4.62], t(214) = 7.45, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.20, 95% CI [-1.14, 1.54], t(214) = 0.29, p = 0.770; Std. beta = 0.05, 95% CI [-0.31, 0.42])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.54, 0.78], t(214) = 0.35, p = 0.727; Std. beta = 0.03, 95% CI [-0.15, 0.21])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.35, 95% CI [-0.61, 1.31], t(214) = 0.71, p = 0.475; Std. beta = 0.09, 95% CI [-0.16, 0.35])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
gad
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict gad with group and time_point (formula: gad ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.71) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.87e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 3.38 (95% CI [2.48, 4.28], t(214) = 7.39, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.30, 95% CI [-1.54, 0.95], t(214) = -0.47, p = 0.639; Std. beta = -0.09, 95% CI [-0.44, 0.27])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.03, 95% CI [-0.74, 0.68], t(214) = -0.09, p = 0.931; Std. beta = -9.05e-03, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.19])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.43, 95% CI [-0.60, 1.46], t(214) = 0.82, p = 0.412; Std. beta = 0.12, 95% CI [-0.17, 0.42])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_pcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_pcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_pcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.68) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 1.66e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 51.88 (95% CI [50.08, 53.68], t(214) = 56.38, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.46, 95% CI [-2.96, 2.05], t(214) = -0.36, p = 0.722; Std. beta = -0.07, 95% CI [-0.42, 0.29])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -0.79, 95% CI [-2.29, 0.71], t(214) = -1.03, p = 0.304; Std. beta = -0.11, 95% CI [-0.33, 0.10])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.72, 95% CI [-1.45, 2.90], t(214) = 0.65, p = 0.516; Std. beta = 0.10, 95% CI [-0.21, 0.41])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
nb_mcs
We fitted a linear mixed model (estimated using REML and nloptwrap optimizer) to predict nb_mcs with group and time_point (formula: nb_mcs ~ 1 + group + time_point + group * time_point). The model included login_id as random effect (formula: ~1 | login_id). The model’s total explanatory power is substantial (conditional R2 = 0.62) and the part related to the fixed effects alone (marginal R2) is of 3.48e-03. The model’s intercept, corresponding to group = control and time_point = 1st, is at 50.20 (95% CI [48.02, 52.38], t(214) = 45.12, p < .001). Within this model:
- The effect of group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.08, 95% CI [-2.95, 3.11], t(214) = 0.05, p = 0.959; Std. beta = 9.49e-03, 95% CI [-0.35, 0.37])
- The effect of time point [2nd] is statistically non-significant and positive (beta = 0.96, 95% CI [-1.03, 2.94], t(214) = 0.94, p = 0.345; Std. beta = 0.11, 95% CI [-0.12, 0.35])
- The interaction effect of time point [2nd] on group [treatment] is statistically non-significant and negative (beta = -1.52, 95% CI [-4.39, 1.35], t(214) = -1.04, p = 0.300; Std. beta = -0.18, 95% CI [-0.52, 0.16])
Standardized parameters were obtained by fitting the model on a standardized version of the dataset. 95% Confidence Intervals (CIs) and p-values were computed using a Wald normal distribution approximation.
Likelihood ratio tests
outcome | model | npar | AIC | BIC | logLik | deviance | Chisq | Df | p |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
sets | null | 3 | 930.640 | 940.821 | -462.320 | 924.640 | |||
sets | random | 6 | 933.086 | 953.448 | -460.543 | 921.086 | 3.554 | 3 | 0.314 |
setv | null | 3 | 816.873 | 827.054 | -405.436 | 810.873 | |||
setv | random | 6 | 820.430 | 840.791 | -404.215 | 808.430 | 2.443 | 3 | 0.486 |
maks | null | 3 | 1,142.673 | 1,152.854 | -568.337 | 1,136.673 | |||
maks | random | 6 | 1,147.452 | 1,167.814 | -567.726 | 1,135.452 | 1.221 | 3 | 0.748 |
ibs | null | 3 | 938.097 | 948.278 | -466.048 | 932.097 | |||
ibs | random | 6 | 938.933 | 959.295 | -463.467 | 926.933 | 5.163 | 3 | 0.160 |
ers_e | null | 3 | 737.774 | 747.955 | -365.887 | 731.774 | |||
ers_e | random | 6 | 738.664 | 759.025 | -363.332 | 726.664 | 5.110 | 3 | 0.164 |
ers_r | null | 3 | 795.164 | 805.345 | -394.582 | 789.164 | |||
ers_r | random | 6 | 797.269 | 817.630 | -392.634 | 785.269 | 3.895 | 3 | 0.273 |
pss_pa | null | 3 | 1,251.529 | 1,261.710 | -622.765 | 1,245.529 | |||
pss_pa | random | 6 | 1,252.589 | 1,272.951 | -620.295 | 1,240.589 | 4.940 | 3 | 0.176 |
pss_ps | null | 3 | 1,481.787 | 1,491.968 | -737.894 | 1,475.787 | |||
pss_ps | random | 6 | 1,485.709 | 1,506.071 | -736.855 | 1,473.709 | 2.078 | 3 | 0.556 |
pss | null | 3 | 1,637.610 | 1,647.790 | -815.805 | 1,631.610 | |||
pss | random | 6 | 1,640.212 | 1,660.573 | -814.106 | 1,628.212 | 3.398 | 3 | 0.334 |
rki_responsible | null | 3 | 1,199.197 | 1,209.378 | -596.598 | 1,193.197 | |||
rki_responsible | random | 6 | 1,204.864 | 1,225.225 | -596.432 | 1,192.864 | 0.333 | 3 | 0.954 |
rki_nonlinear | null | 3 | 1,056.679 | 1,066.860 | -525.339 | 1,050.679 | |||
rki_nonlinear | random | 6 | 1,056.392 | 1,076.754 | -522.196 | 1,044.392 | 6.287 | 3 | 0.098 |
rki_peer | null | 3 | 929.670 | 939.851 | -461.835 | 923.670 | |||
rki_peer | random | 6 | 935.375 | 955.736 | -461.687 | 923.375 | 0.295 | 3 | 0.961 |
rki_expect | null | 3 | 640.133 | 650.313 | -317.066 | 634.133 | |||
rki_expect | random | 6 | 638.201 | 658.563 | -313.101 | 626.201 | 7.931 | 3 | 0.047 |
rki | null | 3 | 1,382.908 | 1,393.089 | -688.454 | 1,376.908 | |||
rki | random | 6 | 1,384.639 | 1,405.001 | -686.319 | 1,372.639 | 4.269 | 3 | 0.234 |
raq_possible | null | 3 | 862.630 | 872.811 | -428.315 | 856.630 | |||
raq_possible | random | 6 | 864.464 | 884.826 | -426.232 | 852.464 | 4.166 | 3 | 0.244 |
raq_difficulty | null | 3 | 721.521 | 731.702 | -357.761 | 715.521 | |||
raq_difficulty | random | 6 | 726.353 | 746.715 | -357.177 | 714.353 | 1.168 | 3 | 0.761 |
raq | null | 3 | 1,054.792 | 1,064.973 | -524.396 | 1,048.792 | |||
raq | random | 6 | 1,057.641 | 1,078.002 | -522.820 | 1,045.641 | 3.152 | 3 | 0.369 |
who | null | 3 | 1,227.754 | 1,237.934 | -610.877 | 1,221.754 | |||
who | random | 6 | 1,233.694 | 1,254.056 | -610.847 | 1,221.694 | 0.059 | 3 | 0.996 |
phq | null | 3 | 1,113.855 | 1,124.036 | -553.928 | 1,107.855 | |||
phq | random | 6 | 1,117.737 | 1,138.099 | -552.868 | 1,105.737 | 2.118 | 3 | 0.548 |
gad | null | 3 | 1,106.251 | 1,116.432 | -550.126 | 1,100.251 | |||
gad | random | 6 | 1,111.083 | 1,131.445 | -549.542 | 1,099.083 | 1.168 | 3 | 0.761 |
nb_pcs | null | 3 | 1,422.312 | 1,432.493 | -708.156 | 1,416.312 | |||
nb_pcs | random | 6 | 1,427.223 | 1,447.585 | -707.611 | 1,415.223 | 1.089 | 3 | 0.780 |
nb_mcs | null | 3 | 1,520.431 | 1,530.612 | -757.215 | 1,514.431 | |||
nb_mcs | random | 6 | 1,525.076 | 1,545.438 | -756.538 | 1,513.076 | 1.355 | 3 | 0.716 |
Post hoc analysis text
Table
outcome | time | control | treatment | between | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
n | estimate | within es | n | estimate | within es | p | es | ||
sets | 1st | 58 | 19.02 ± 2.05 | 62 | 19.37 ± 2.05 | 0.347 | -0.219 | ||
sets | 2nd | 53 | 18.93 ± 2.04 | 0.053 | 47 | 19.67 ± 2.02 | -0.183 | 0.072 | -0.455 |
setv | 1st | 58 | 11.03 ± 1.67 | 62 | 11.24 ± 1.67 | 0.496 | -0.186 | ||
setv | 2nd | 53 | 11.35 ± 1.64 | -0.285 | 47 | 11.32 ± 1.60 | -0.071 | 0.925 | 0.028 |
maks | 1st | 58 | 44.67 ± 3.71 | 62 | 45.16 ± 3.71 | 0.471 | -0.232 | ||
maks | 2nd | 53 | 44.44 ± 3.63 | 0.109 | 47 | 44.98 ± 3.50 | 0.088 | 0.456 | -0.253 |
ibs | 1st | 58 | 15.41 ± 2.30 | 62 | 15.47 ± 2.30 | 0.898 | -0.041 | ||
ibs | 2nd | 53 | 15.58 ± 2.26 | -0.129 | 47 | 16.04 ± 2.17 | -0.431 | 0.308 | -0.343 |
ers_e | 1st | 58 | 12.14 ± 1.41 | 62 | 12.29 ± 1.41 | 0.556 | -0.172 | ||
ers_e | 2nd | 53 | 11.85 ± 1.39 | 0.331 | 47 | 12.38 ± 1.35 | -0.099 | 0.054 | -0.602 |
ers_r | 1st | 58 | 11.02 ± 1.49 | 62 | 11.19 ± 1.49 | 0.517 | -0.142 | ||
ers_r | 2nd | 53 | 11.12 ± 1.48 | -0.080 | 47 | 11.55 ± 1.47 | -0.290 | 0.141 | -0.352 |
pss_pa | 1st | 58 | 44.47 ± 4.42 | 62 | 44.76 ± 4.42 | 0.717 | -0.097 | ||
pss_pa | 2nd | 53 | 43.38 ± 4.36 | 0.359 | 47 | 44.21 ± 4.27 | 0.183 | 0.340 | -0.273 |
pss_ps | 1st | 58 | 26.67 ± 8.08 | 62 | 26.61 ± 8.08 | 0.968 | 0.013 | ||
pss_ps | 2nd | 53 | 27.65 ± 7.92 | -0.220 | 47 | 26.01 ± 7.60 | 0.136 | 0.290 | 0.370 |
pss | 1st | 58 | 45.21 ± 11.49 | 62 | 44.85 ± 11.49 | 0.867 | 0.056 | ||
pss | 2nd | 53 | 47.30 ± 11.25 | -0.330 | 47 | 44.88 ± 10.80 | -0.003 | 0.274 | 0.383 |
rki_responsible | 1st | 58 | 20.95 ± 4.16 | 62 | 21.06 ± 4.16 | 0.879 | -0.047 | ||
rki_responsible | 2nd | 53 | 20.93 ± 4.08 | 0.006 | 47 | 21.30 ± 3.94 | -0.097 | 0.646 | -0.150 |
rki_nonlinear | 1st | 58 | 13.12 ± 2.91 | 62 | 13.47 ± 2.91 | 0.514 | -0.190 | ||
rki_nonlinear | 2nd | 53 | 12.82 ± 2.86 | 0.163 | 47 | 14.12 ± 2.78 | -0.359 | 0.022 | -0.711 |
rki_peer | 1st | 58 | 20.47 ± 2.18 | 62 | 20.68 ± 2.18 | 0.596 | -0.149 | ||
rki_peer | 2nd | 53 | 20.49 ± 2.15 | -0.021 | 47 | 20.62 ± 2.10 | 0.043 | 0.777 | -0.085 |
rki_expect | 1st | 58 | 4.60 ± 1.08 | 62 | 4.89 ± 1.08 | 0.151 | -0.367 | ||
rki_expect | 2nd | 53 | 4.77 ± 1.07 | -0.220 | 47 | 5.17 ± 1.05 | -0.362 | 0.065 | -0.509 |
rki | 1st | 58 | 59.14 ± 6.27 | 62 | 60.10 ± 6.27 | 0.404 | -0.259 | ||
rki | 2nd | 53 | 59.02 ± 6.15 | 0.031 | 47 | 61.23 ± 5.94 | -0.306 | 0.070 | -0.596 |
raq_possible | 1st | 58 | 15.74 ± 1.80 | 62 | 15.58 ± 1.80 | 0.626 | 0.125 | ||
raq_possible | 2nd | 53 | 15.35 ± 1.79 | 0.303 | 47 | 15.89 ± 1.75 | -0.236 | 0.133 | -0.415 |
raq_difficulty | 1st | 58 | 12.53 ± 1.36 | 62 | 12.31 ± 1.36 | 0.361 | 0.260 | ||
raq_difficulty | 2nd | 53 | 12.41 ± 1.34 | 0.137 | 47 | 12.40 ± 1.31 | -0.107 | 0.959 | 0.016 |
raq | 1st | 58 | 28.28 ± 2.90 | 62 | 27.89 ± 2.90 | 0.464 | 0.210 | ||
raq | 2nd | 53 | 27.78 ± 2.86 | 0.268 | 47 | 28.29 ± 2.78 | -0.219 | 0.363 | -0.278 |
who | 1st | 58 | 14.62 ± 4.49 | 62 | 14.65 ± 4.49 | 0.976 | -0.009 | ||
who | 2nd | 53 | 14.51 ± 4.40 | 0.041 | 47 | 14.60 ± 4.24 | 0.018 | 0.922 | -0.033 |
phq | 1st | 58 | 3.66 ± 3.74 | 62 | 3.85 ± 3.74 | 0.770 | -0.115 | ||
phq | 2nd | 53 | 3.77 ± 3.64 | -0.067 | 47 | 4.32 ± 3.45 | -0.268 | 0.440 | -0.315 |
gad | 1st | 58 | 3.38 ± 3.48 | 62 | 3.08 ± 3.48 | 0.639 | 0.159 | ||
gad | 2nd | 53 | 3.35 ± 3.41 | 0.017 | 47 | 3.48 ± 3.26 | -0.213 | 0.844 | -0.070 |
nb_pcs | 1st | 58 | 51.88 ± 7.01 | 62 | 51.42 ± 7.01 | 0.722 | 0.115 | ||
nb_pcs | 2nd | 53 | 51.09 ± 6.87 | 0.198 | 47 | 51.36 ± 6.61 | 0.017 | 0.844 | -0.067 |
nb_mcs | 1st | 58 | 50.20 ± 8.47 | 62 | 50.28 ± 8.47 | 0.959 | -0.015 | ||
nb_mcs | 2nd | 53 | 51.16 ± 8.34 | -0.182 | 47 | 49.72 ± 8.08 | 0.107 | 0.382 | 0.274 |
Between group
sets
1st
t(191.28) = 0.94, p = 0.347, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.39 to 1.09)
2st
t(204.03) = 1.81, p = 0.072, Cohen d = -0.45, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.54)
setv
1st
t(170.27) = 0.68, p = 0.496, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.39 to 0.81)
2st
t(189.13) = -0.09, p = 0.925, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-0.67 to 0.61)
maks
1st
t(154.38) = 0.72, p = 0.471, Cohen d = -0.23, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.83)
2st
t(173.65) = 0.75, p = 0.456, Cohen d = -0.25, 95% CI (-0.88 to 1.94)
ibs
1st
t(155.14) = 0.13, p = 0.898, Cohen d = -0.04, 95% CI (-0.78 to 0.88)
2st
t(174.49) = 1.02, p = 0.308, Cohen d = -0.34, 95% CI (-0.42 to 1.33)
ers_e
1st
t(163.05) = 0.59, p = 0.556, Cohen d = -0.17, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.66)
2st
t(182.62) = 1.94, p = 0.054, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.01 to 1.07)
ers_r
1st
t(199.48) = 0.65, p = 0.517, Cohen d = -0.14, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.71)
2st
t(208.55) = 1.48, p = 0.141, Cohen d = -0.35, 95% CI (-0.15 to 1.02)
pss_pa
1st
t(172.87) = 0.36, p = 0.717, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-1.30 to 1.88)
2st
t(191.28) = 0.96, p = 0.340, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.88 to 2.53)
pss_ps
1st
t(152.06) = -0.04, p = 0.968, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-2.98 to 2.86)
2st
t(171.01) = -1.06, p = 0.290, Cohen d = 0.37, 95% CI (-4.71 to 1.42)
pss
1st
t(151.97) = -0.17, p = 0.867, Cohen d = 0.06, 95% CI (-4.50 to 3.80)
2st
t(170.90) = -1.10, p = 0.274, Cohen d = 0.38, 95% CI (-6.78 to 1.94)
rki_responsible
1st
t(158.11) = 0.15, p = 0.879, Cohen d = -0.05, 95% CI (-1.38 to 1.62)
2st
t(177.68) = 0.46, p = 0.646, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-1.22 to 1.96)
rki_nonlinear
1st
t(163.55) = 0.65, p = 0.514, Cohen d = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.70 to 1.40)
2st
t(183.10) = 2.30, p = 0.022, Cohen d = -0.71, 95% CI (0.19 to 2.41)
rki_peer
1st
t(167.06) = 0.53, p = 0.596, Cohen d = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.58 to 1.00)
2st
t(186.34) = 0.28, p = 0.777, Cohen d = -0.09, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.96)
rki_expect
1st
t(178.45) = 1.44, p = 0.151, Cohen d = -0.37, 95% CI (-0.10 to 0.67)
2st
t(195.58) = 1.86, p = 0.065, Cohen d = -0.51, 95% CI (-0.02 to 0.81)
rki
1st
t(157.65) = 0.84, p = 0.404, Cohen d = -0.26, 95% CI (-1.30 to 3.22)
2st
t(177.19) = 1.82, p = 0.070, Cohen d = -0.60, 95% CI (-0.18 to 4.60)
raq_possible
1st
t(178.10) = -0.49, p = 0.626, Cohen d = 0.12, 95% CI (-0.81 to 0.49)
2st
t(195.32) = 1.51, p = 0.133, Cohen d = -0.42, 95% CI (-0.16 to 1.23)
raq_difficulty
1st
t(165.68) = -0.92, p = 0.361, Cohen d = 0.26, 95% CI (-0.72 to 0.26)
2st
t(185.10) = -0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.54 to 0.51)
raq
1st
t(165.12) = -0.73, p = 0.464, Cohen d = 0.21, 95% CI (-1.43 to 0.66)
2st
t(184.58) = 0.91, p = 0.363, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.60 to 1.63)
who
1st
t(155.37) = 0.03, p = 0.976, Cohen d = -0.01, 95% CI (-1.60 to 1.64)
2st
t(174.74) = 0.10, p = 0.922, Cohen d = -0.03, 95% CI (-1.62 to 1.79)
phq
1st
t(141.56) = 0.29, p = 0.770, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-1.15 to 1.55)
2st
t(157.62) = 0.77, p = 0.440, Cohen d = -0.32, 95% CI (-0.85 to 1.95)
gad
1st
t(150.36) = -0.47, p = 0.639, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.56 to 0.96)
2st
t(169.00) = 0.20, p = 0.844, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-1.19 to 1.45)
nb_pcs
1st
t(154.18) = -0.36, p = 0.722, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.98 to 2.07)
2st
t(173.42) = 0.20, p = 0.844, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-2.40 to 2.93)
nb_mcs
1st
t(162.25) = 0.05, p = 0.959, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-2.98 to 3.14)
2st
t(181.85) = -0.88, p = 0.382, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-4.68 to 1.80)
Within treatment group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(112.09) = 0.92, p = 0.360, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-0.34 to 0.93)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(108.43) = 0.35, p = 0.724, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.36 to 0.52)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(105.59) = -0.44, p = 0.664, Cohen d = 0.09, 95% CI (-1.03 to 0.66)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(105.73) = 2.13, p = 0.035, Cohen d = -0.43, 95% CI (0.04 to 1.10)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(107.16) = 0.49, p = 0.623, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.27 to 0.44)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(113.61) = 1.47, p = 0.145, Cohen d = -0.29, 95% CI (-0.13 to 0.85)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(108.88) = -0.91, p = 0.364, Cohen d = 0.18, 95% CI (-1.75 to 0.65)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(105.16) = -0.67, p = 0.504, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-2.40 to 1.19)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(105.14) = 0.02, p = 0.987, Cohen d = -0.00, 95% CI (-2.52 to 2.57)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(106.27) = 0.48, p = 0.633, Cohen d = -0.10, 95% CI (-0.75 to 1.23)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(107.25) = 1.78, p = 0.078, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.07 to 1.39)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(107.87) = -0.22, p = 0.830, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.50)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(109.84) = 1.81, p = 0.073, Cohen d = -0.36, 95% CI (-0.03 to 0.59)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(106.19) = 1.51, p = 0.134, Cohen d = -0.31, 95% CI (-0.35 to 2.61)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(109.78) = 1.18, p = 0.240, Cohen d = -0.24, 95% CI (-0.21 to 0.82)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(107.62) = 0.53, p = 0.595, Cohen d = -0.11, 95% CI (-0.26 to 0.44)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(107.52) = 1.09, p = 0.279, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.33 to 1.15)
who
1st vs 2st
t(105.77) = -0.09, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.08 to 0.99)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(103.14) = 1.32, p = 0.191, Cohen d = -0.27, 95% CI (-0.24 to 1.17)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(104.84) = 1.05, p = 0.297, Cohen d = -0.21, 95% CI (-0.36 to 1.15)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(105.55) = -0.08, p = 0.935, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-1.66 to 1.53)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(107.02) = -0.53, p = 0.596, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-2.67 to 1.54)
Within control group
sets
1st vs 2st
t(103.77) = -0.28, p = 0.782, Cohen d = 0.05, 95% CI (-0.70 to 0.53)
setv
1st vs 2st
t(102.07) = 1.48, p = 0.142, Cohen d = -0.28, 95% CI (-0.11 to 0.74)
maks
1st vs 2st
t(100.87) = -0.57, p = 0.572, Cohen d = 0.11, 95% CI (-1.04 to 0.58)
ibs
1st vs 2st
t(100.93) = 0.67, p = 0.505, Cohen d = -0.13, 95% CI (-0.33 to 0.68)
ers_e
1st vs 2st
t(101.52) = -1.72, p = 0.089, Cohen d = 0.33, 95% CI (-0.63 to 0.05)
ers_r
1st vs 2st
t(104.54) = 0.42, p = 0.676, Cohen d = -0.08, 95% CI (-0.37 to 0.57)
pss_pa
1st vs 2st
t(102.27) = -1.87, p = 0.065, Cohen d = 0.36, 95% CI (-2.24 to 0.07)
pss_ps
1st vs 2st
t(100.70) = 1.14, p = 0.256, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.73 to 2.69)
pss
1st vs 2st
t(100.69) = 1.71, p = 0.090, Cohen d = -0.33, 95% CI (-0.33 to 4.52)
rki_responsible
1st vs 2st
t(101.15) = -0.03, p = 0.975, Cohen d = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.96 to 0.93)
rki_nonlinear
1st vs 2st
t(101.56) = -0.84, p = 0.401, Cohen d = 0.16, 95% CI (-1.00 to 0.40)
rki_peer
1st vs 2st
t(101.82) = 0.11, p = 0.914, Cohen d = -0.02, 95% CI (-0.51 to 0.57)
rki_expect
1st vs 2st
t(102.70) = 1.15, p = 0.255, Cohen d = -0.22, 95% CI (-0.12 to 0.46)
rki
1st vs 2st
t(101.12) = -0.16, p = 0.871, Cohen d = 0.03, 95% CI (-1.53 to 1.30)
raq_possible
1st vs 2st
t(102.67) = -1.58, p = 0.118, Cohen d = 0.30, 95% CI (-0.88 to 0.10)
raq_difficulty
1st vs 2st
t(101.72) = -0.71, p = 0.478, Cohen d = 0.14, 95% CI (-0.45 to 0.21)
raq
1st vs 2st
t(101.68) = -1.39, p = 0.167, Cohen d = 0.27, 95% CI (-1.20 to 0.21)
who
1st vs 2st
t(100.95) = -0.21, p = 0.832, Cohen d = 0.04, 95% CI (-1.09 to 0.88)
phq
1st vs 2st
t(99.90) = 0.35, p = 0.728, Cohen d = -0.07, 95% CI (-0.55 to 0.79)
gad
1st vs 2st
t(100.57) = -0.09, p = 0.931, Cohen d = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.75 to 0.69)
nb_pcs
1st vs 2st
t(100.86) = -1.03, p = 0.307, Cohen d = 0.20, 95% CI (-2.31 to 0.73)
nb_mcs
1st vs 2st
t(101.46) = 0.94, p = 0.348, Cohen d = -0.18, 95% CI (-1.05 to 2.97)